Nana and manas,
Finally someone has something intelligent to say.
I think you're generally right. However, he, at times thought of Buddhism as part of the Yellow Path (I posted about this earlier in this thread--the reference was to three chapters in Magick Without Tears). Furthermore, he qualified his views on the black, white and yellow paths in two ways: (1) they failed to express anything spiritually ultimate as linguistic conventions (the same problem exists for any relgion, including Buddhism--the Buddha ackowledges this repeatedly--, where ineffable experiences are impossible to put into words); and (2) all three paths themselves were inseperable at some point and that crucial and pivotal aspect was the practitioner's intention. For Buddhists this should make sense because even temporary releases from dukkha produce JOY; and JOY (cf. the seven factors) and it's family members, piti, sukkha, etc..., are part of The Path.
I'm not sure what you mean by "temporary cessation state." They were not permanent for the Buddha or subsequent arahants; otherwise, they wouldn't have been able to teach.
As far as whether or not Crowley actually engaged The Path and what he actually attained or didn't, neither of us are (or anyone for that matter) qualified to judge (and as far as his "rebirth" is concerned--we best not start pulling on that string again). It's a matter of faith. You can either beleive him or not. That's a personal choice. But, as he said in Book 4, "Don't believe me. Find out for yourself" (I'm paraphrasing). This is the same attitude the Buddha took in MN 47, Vimamsaka Sutta.
Speaking of the Majjhima Nikaya, in MN 56, Upali Sutta we find a distinction being made between bad magicians and good magicians and the Buddha being aligned with good magicians--to which he does not protest. Furthermore, the sutta descriptions of supernormal powers, psychic powers, knowledge of rebirth, etc... are acknowledged in most modern Magickal systems as valid, and utilized as (sub-)goals of practice in several of them.
I've addressed your comments above except I would add that I agree that the Buddha never taught that life is suffering but rather that there is much suffering in life (I follow Thanissaro (et al) here--see his Refuge). I think Crowley's interpretation of dukkha is in line with this, which you can find our for yourself if you investigate the ciatations I've provided.